"Manchesterism" is a mere springboard towards a national economic doctrine
Andy Burnham's Manchesterism offers a compelling vision of devolution and regional renewal, but can it carry him through his premiership alone?
Andy Burnham has vowed to bring a "new kind of politics" to the UK, one that utilises cross-party collaboration to achieve a "place first" approach. This is the anchor of Manchesterism, a term coined by the incoming Prime Minister himself, that has undoubtedly propelled Burnham towards Number 10, and reasonably so.
There are a number of institutional injustices that Burnham has witnessed throughout his political career which have shaped his political philosophy: the Hillsborough disaster, the infected blood scandal, and the way lockdown restrictions disproportionately impacted those living outside London during his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester. These experiences are woven throughout his arguments for a fairer Britain in Head North, co-authored with Steve Rotheram.
Because Burnham diagnoses Westminster and Whitehall centralisation as the principal driver of Britain's regional inequalities, Manchesterism begins with a constitutional critique. Its initial policy platform argues that political power must be dispersed away from London through a written constitution, underpinned by a "Basic British Law", alongside a radical programme of devolution and institutional reform, including the restructuring of the House of Lords.
Burnham's approach to economics is what he calls "business-friendly socialism". Embracing a role for private investment, he wants to see greater public control in areas such as housing, transport and utilities. He views regional investment and a more active state not as obstacles to enterprise, but as the conditions that allow businesses to thrive outside London. He frames this as "good growth" that reaches every postcode and ensures that no place is left behind. His flagship policy so far has been a commitment to build the largest number of council houses since the post-war settlement, reducing the housing benefit bill while simultaneously offering a more meritocratic path to homeownership for younger generations.
Our new PM is also keen to point to Manchester as proof of concept, boasting that the city is bucking the trend of the rest of the nation and growing at over 3% GDP per annum. The aim is not to pit workers against employers, or the state against the market, but to create a more balanced economy in which growth is spread more evenly and local economies are given the tools to succeed.
Watch Burnham set out his vision for Britain
Yet herein lies Manchesterism's central limitation. While it offers a compelling account of where power should reside, it is less developed on what should be done with that power once devolved. Manchesterism is rich in institutional theory but comparatively economically thin. It provides a framework for governance, representation and local empowerment, but "business friendly socialism" alone is not a comprehensive account of how Britain should rebuild industry, tackle the bond markets, or navigate the economic challenges of the twenty-first century.
Despite its rhetoric of moving beyond "trickle-down economics", Manchesterism often remains tethered to many of the assumptions that underpin the existing economic settlement. If we're to take a heterodox view, we wouldn't necessarily be overtly celebrating GDP, which increases when rents go up, when prices in the supermarket go up, when multi-billion pound corporations produce eye-watering profits for shareholders but fail to invest in their employees. An alternative political economy would place greater emphasis on the distribution of wealth, the quality of work, community resilience, social wellbeing, public goods and the long-term social value created by economic activity.
Indeed, Burnham speaks briefly in Head North about the North West, the Midlands and the North East becoming the engine of Britain's fourth industrial revolution, unlocking potential in digital technology, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and green energy. Yet he offers little detail on how the country will meet the infrastructure and investment requirements necessary to achieve such ambitions. This is where Manchesterism appears to require a companion doctrine. Figures such as Ed Miliband have begun to develop a theory of how devolved power might be used. Industrial strategy, energy security, mission-led government and the creation of new productive capacity address questions that devolution alone cannot answer.
Ed Miliband's vision, as articulated in Go Big, offers something that Manchesterism presently lacks. At the heart of this project is the idea of a renewed social contract. For Miliband, the state, business and labour must develop a new settlement capable of ensuring that the gains from technological and economic change are widely shared. The fourth industrial revolution cannot simply be left to market forces. Instead, government must play a strategic role in shaping markets, directing investment, developing skills and ensuring that innovation serves social purposes rather than narrow private interests.
Trade unions occupy a central position within this vision. Rather than acting solely as defensive organisations that protect wages and conditions, they become democratic institutions that give workers a voice in the transition itself. Miliband also advocates progressive reforms inspired by countries such as Sweden and Iceland, while promoting worker co-operatives, employee-owned firms and measures designed to reduce excessive market concentration. In this sense, Miliband's political economy offers something more expansive than Manchesterism.
Manchesterism may therefore be best understood not as a complete economic doctrine, but as the institutional architecture upon which one can be built. When Burnham walks into Number 10 on Monday, the cabinet minister he chooses to occupy Number 11 may prove just as important as his devolution agenda. Economic policy will ultimately be the most visible measure by which the public judges his premiership.
Westminster speculation has centered on figures such as Shabana Mahmood and Wes Streeting, yet Ed Miliband appears the more intellectually coherent choice. While Burnham has developed a compelling argument about where power should sit, Miliband has spent years developing an argument about how that power should be used. If Manchesterism is the architecture, Miliband provides the blueprint for change.
Jacob Barclay-Evans